Large-Scale Feature Learning With Spike-and-Slab Sparse Coding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of object recognition with a large number of classes. In order to overcome the low amount of labeled examples available in this setting, we introduce a new feature learning and extraction procedure based on a factor model we call spike-and-slab sparse coding (S3C). Prior work on S3C has not prioritized the ability to exploit parallel architectures and scale S3C to the enormous problem sizes needed for object recognition. We present a novel inference procedure for appropriate for use with GPUs which allows us to dramatically increase both the training set size and the amount of latent factors that S3C may be trained with. We demonstrate that this approach improves upon the supervised learning capabilities of both sparse coding and the spike-and-slab Restricted Boltzmann Machine (ssRBM) on the CIFAR-10 dataset. We use the CIFAR-100 dataset to demonstrate that our method scales to large numbers of classes better than previous methods. Finally, we use our method to win the NIPS 2011 Workshop on Challenges In Learning Hierarchical Models? Transfer Learning Challenge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".